Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun, show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics

Why the insistence on new species with "novel DNA?" As has already been noted above, speciation doesn't have to involve the appearance of brand new genes. And again - mutations can never be classified as epigenetics. Mutations are changes in DNA sequence. Epigenetics is changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes in DNA sequence.

I suspect what your opponents are really objecting to is not speciation, which merely requires reproductive isolation. I think they're disputing that evolution can produce new genes and new functions.

If so, you're never going to be able to cite a lab study showing the complete evolution, from scratch, of some complex new structure like an eye. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to observe that directly.

In fact, you might remind them that that's their hypothesis - that some "intelligent designer" can supposedly create new functions and whole new creatures in an instant. Where's their evidence for that?

It's true we can't watch a mouse-like animal evolve into a bat-like animal in a lab. But we can observe mutations that alter gene functions. We observe the appearance of novel genes and novel biochemical functions. We observe transitions throughout the fossil record that are consistent with gradual evolution, not with instantaneous design. We observe genetic relationships between organisms, and between functions, that are very consistent with the fossil record. We can even observe related genes in different species, infer a likely evolutionary path from an ancestral organism, predict the likely gene sequence and function that ancestral organism should have had, make that predicted ancestral gene, and show it has the predicted function!

So, while it's true that we can't observe everything about evolution, it's very much false that belief in evolution is just as much faith as is belief in ID.

Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun, show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics

As has already been noted above, speciation doesn't have to involve the appearance of brand new genes. And again - mutations can never be classified as epigenetics. Mutations are changes in DNA sequence. Epigenetics is changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes in DNA sequence.

If so, you're never going to be able to cite a lab study showing the complete evolution, from scratch, of some complex new structure like an eye. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to observe that directly.

In fact, you might remind them that that's their hypothesis - that some "intelligent designer" can supposedly create new functions and whole new creatures in an instant. Where's their evidence for that?

It's true we can't watch a mouse-like animal evolve into a bat-like animal in a lab. But we can observe mutations that alter gene functions. We observe the appearance of novel genes and novel biochemical functions. We observe transitions throughout the fossil record that are consistent with gradual evolution, not with instantaneous design. We observe genetic relationships between organisms, and between functions, that are very consistent with the fossil record. We can even observe related genes in different species, infer a likely evolutionary path from an ancestral organism, predict the likely gene sequence and function that ancestral organism should have had, make that predicted ancestral gene, and show it has the predicted function!

So, while it's true that we can't observe everything about evolution, it's very much false that belief in evolution is just as much faith as is belief in ID.

Quote

Why the insistence on new species with "novel DNA?"

Because for them it would show that new more complex species could arise. It would be an example of how life became complex.

In the lizard example since the genome was not sequenced we don't know what the cause of the alterations are, so epigenics could be the cause as well as modified DNA or new DNA. But we can't use this example untill we know. Although I read a further study that did say that these morphological changes were already present at the embrionic stage suggesting that there is a genetic link, but we can't know for sure.

Quote

I suspect what your opponents are really objecting to is not speciation, which merely requires reproductive isolation. I think they're disputing that evolution can produce new genes and new functions.

Yes that's why I thought to ask them how we can get to humans with 400 - 700 alleles in under 4000 years from Noah's 16. Without having a HUGE amount of increase in genetic information.

I don't want a lab study that would show complete evolution, it would be sufficient to show that a morphological mutation that occured due to novel genetic material was selected by natural selection and was passed down to a new species. That's all they are asking. So for example have a skink develop from a snake in nature. Showing that the skink has new genetic material (that was not already present in the snake) for protolegs and is otherwise very genetically similar or identical to a snake.

ThanksMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

I don't want a lab study that would show complete evolution, it would be sufficient to show that a morphological mutation that occured due to novel genetic material was selected by natural selection and was passed down to a new species.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

But sure, they will just say they are still "bacteria", not a new species (whatever that might mean).

But Lenski had exactly what you are asking for, novel genetic material promoted by selection and passed down to form a new species.

Sympatric speciation by the formation of host races (parasite populations associated with different plant or animal hosts) has been the subject of great controversy. It has been difficult to demonstrate the existence of host races1,2, much less to prove that host races are evolving toward species status. Genetic polymorphism attributable to association with different resources does occur3, but the phenomenon is far from ubiquitous in parasite populations. The apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella uses a variety of host plants, and Bush4,5 has argued that it is a likely candidate for speciation by a sympatric mode. So far however there has been no direct evidence of any genetic differentiation between host-associated fly populations. We report significant differences in allele frequencies between fly populations reared from sympatric apple (Mains pumila) and hawthorn (Crataegus mollis) trees at a field site in Urbana, Illinois, in the United States.

Developmental research in 2004 found that bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4), and its differential expression during development, resulted in variation of beak size and shape among finches. BMP4 acts in the developing embryo to lay down skeletal features, including the beak.[24] The same group showed that the different beak shapes of Darwin's finches develop are also influenced by slightly different timing and spatial expression of a gene called calmodulin (CaM).[25] Calmodulin acts in a similar way to BMP4, affecting some of the features of beak growth. The authors suggest that changes in the temporal and spatial expression of these two factors are possible developmental controls of beak morphology.

Give it more time and they won't be able to interbreed because of the beak sizes and you have what you want. Long after we're all dead, but evolution is (usually) slow at the species level.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

I don't want a lab study that would show complete evolution, it would be sufficient to show that a morphological mutation that occured due to novel genetic material was selected by natural selection and was passed down to a new species.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

But sure, they will just say they are still "bacteria", not a new species (whatever that might mean).

But Lenski had exactly what you are asking for, novel genetic material promoted by selection and passed down to form a new species.

Sympatric speciation by the formation of host races (parasite populations associated with different plant or animal hosts) has been the subject of great controversy. It has been difficult to demonstrate the existence of host races1,2, much less to prove that host races are evolving toward species status. Genetic polymorphism attributable to association with different resources does occur3, but the phenomenon is far from ubiquitous in parasite populations. The apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella uses a variety of host plants, and Bush4,5 has argued that it is a likely candidate for speciation by a sympatric mode. So far however there has been no direct evidence of any genetic differentiation between host-associated fly populations. We report significant differences in allele frequencies between fly populations reared from sympatric apple (Mains pumila) and hawthorn (Crataegus mollis) trees at a field site in Urbana, Illinois, in the United States.

Developmental research in 2004 found that bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4), and its differential expression during development, resulted in variation of beak size and shape among finches. BMP4 acts in the developing embryo to lay down skeletal features, including the beak.[24] The same group showed that the different beak shapes of Darwin's finches develop are also influenced by slightly different timing and spatial expression of a gene called calmodulin (CaM).[25] Calmodulin acts in a similar way to BMP4, affecting some of the features of beak growth. The authors suggest that changes in the temporal and spatial expression of these two factors are possible developmental controls of beak morphology.

Give it more time and they won't be able to interbreed because of the beak sizes and you have what you want. Long after we're all dead, but evolution is (usually) slow at the species level.

Actually, the arguably a new species by most meaningful definitions of the word.

The collection of bacteria we call E. coli can have up to 80% genetic variation. That's way more than any equivalent non-bacterial species.

But one of the defining characters of E. coli is the inability to utilize citrate. That is how doctors determine if you have Salmonella poisoning or E. coli poisoning. They grow the sample on citrate. If it grows, then it is Salmonella.

So, you have a bacterium with a very novel feature, one, by definition, it shouldn't have.

If Lenski ever writes a paper describing his strain as a new species, there would probably not be anyone complaining about it.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun, show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics

As has already been noted above, speciation doesn't have to involve the appearance of brand new genes. And again - mutations can never be classified as epigenetics. Mutations are changes in DNA sequence. Epigenetics is changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes in DNA sequence.

If so, you're never going to be able to cite a lab study showing the complete evolution, from scratch, of some complex new structure like an eye. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to observe that directly.

In fact, you might remind them that that's their hypothesis - that some "intelligent designer" can supposedly create new functions and whole new creatures in an instant. Where's their evidence for that?

It's true we can't watch a mouse-like animal evolve into a bat-like animal in a lab. But we can observe mutations that alter gene functions. We observe the appearance of novel genes and novel biochemical functions. We observe transitions throughout the fossil record that are consistent with gradual evolution, not with instantaneous design. We observe genetic relationships between organisms, and between functions, that are very consistent with the fossil record. We can even observe related genes in different species, infer a likely evolutionary path from an ancestral organism, predict the likely gene sequence and function that ancestral organism should have had, make that predicted ancestral gene, and show it has the predicted function!

So, while it's true that we can't observe everything about evolution, it's very much false that belief in evolution is just as much faith as is belief in ID.

Quote

Why the insistence on new species with "novel DNA?"

Because for them it would show that new more complex species could arise. It would be an example of how life became complex.

In the lizard example since the genome was not sequenced we don't know what the cause of the alterations are, so epigenics could be the cause as well as modified DNA or new DNA. But we can't use this example untill we know. Although I read a further study that did say that these morphological changes were already present at the embrionic stage suggesting that there is a genetic link, but we can't know for sure.

Quote

I suspect what your opponents are really objecting to is not speciation, which merely requires reproductive isolation. I think they're disputing that evolution can produce new genes and new functions.

Yes that's why I thought to ask them how we can get to humans with 400 - 700 alleles in under 4000 years from Noah's 16. Without having a HUGE amount of increase in genetic information.

I don't want a lab study that would show complete evolution, it would be sufficient to show that a morphological mutation that occured due to novel genetic material was selected by natural selection and was passed down to a new species. That's all they are asking. So for example have a skink develop from a snake in nature. Showing that the skink has new genetic material (that was not already present in the snake) for protolegs and is otherwise very genetically similar or identical to a snake.

ThanksMarty

You have asked a good question, because it demonstrates the weakness of YEC - making an argument based only on the immediate moment (mutation can't generate novel alleles when talking about evolution), and ignoring the fact that they must postulate much higher rates (for a population arising from 8 individuals).

qetzal is correct in noting that they do not even know what epigenetics is about in 3). I also point out that 2) is not required for 1), despite what they think they understand.

The key is showing that evolution DID occur, whether they understand HOW or not. The HOW is being used as an excuse, a rationalization. That is why the fossil record is so crucial for demonstrating that YEC is so absurd.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

What's a "more complex species"? One that has a bigger genome? Polyploidization produces those species all the time.On the top of my head, I cannot find pairs of incipient species where one could be readily considered phenotypically as "more complex". New functions, like new organs, take some time to evolve, and that is not achieved through a single speciation event. Of course, difference in phenotypic complexity is visible when you compare more distant species. Some Heliconius races have complex wing patterns that are derived from simpler patterns (if I'm not mistaken). Does that count?

Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...Here's a nucleotide sequence:gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tgaIs that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.

Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...Here's a nucleotide sequence:gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tgaIs that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.

Remeber these people hold behe's work and the bible next to each other.

So in the example of the lizard, they say yes it may have mutated but no new novel functions or genetic material is involved. It's just epigenics.

What they say is show us that the DNA of the original lizard and the "new" lizard has been totaly sequenced and show us where there is added information. Until you do so you are assuming that there is without a drop of proof.

This is a comfortable place from them to be as DNA sequencing is expencive and they know it won't be done on a lizard. Actually Ioseb launched a challenge and said prove to me with a study that this is an example in which novel genetic matrial is added in the "new" lizard and I'll bow down to you all.

marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

This is a comfortable place from them to be as DNA sequencing is expencive and they know it won't be done on a lizard. Actually Ioseb launched a challenge and said prove to me with a study that this is an example in which novel genetic matrial is added in the "new" lizard and I'll bow down to you all.

Then just wait a few years and you can disprove their religion for them all at once. The price of sequencing is falling all the time, compared to just a few years ago it's now a fraction of the price.

What you should really do is let them know that their challenge is almost science! All they have to do is write up what exactly they are proposing and send it to the John Templeton Foundation.

Our vision is derived from the late Sir John Templeton's optimism about the possibility of acquiring “new spiritual information” and from his commitment to rigorous scientific research and related scholarship. The Foundation's motto, "How little we know, how eager to learn," exemplifies our support for open-minded inquiry and our hope for advancing human progress through breakthrough discoveries.

I'm 100% sure (they previously asked for ID submissions) they would fund such a study that claimed not only to disprove "Darwinism" but provide evidence for an interventionist deity at the same time. And if all you have to do is sequence a couple of Lizards then they'd go for it I'm sure.

Why does there have to be "novel genetic material" and what does that actually mean? If a series of mutations altered existing genes and led to some new function, would that count as new added genetic material?

Why does there have to be "novel genetic material" and what does that actually mean? If a series of mutations altered existing genes and led to some new function, would that count as new added genetic material?

See in there minds, nothing new can be created by nature. Remember Behe's study? Almost all mutations are negative or involve a loss of function. This for them is a law.

They state that if you don't have new genetic material how do you create new organs, how do you get from bacteria to humans without new genetic material.

That's why for them the ultimate proof of evolution is something that disproves this. Although I have no doubt that they will move the goal post once you offer them this proof.

I have to add that because most of them are not very learnered (niether am I actually at least in biology I have a degree in international economics) what they want to see is a new species (preferebly an animal) that arises due to new genetic material.

The example of the lizard would have been great but the evolution could have been due to other factors not necessarily new genetic material.

Another thing that would greatly weeken their argument is a peer reviewed paper that is critical of Behe's work.

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

By the way this is one example of how the creationist would try to convince us that superevolution after the flood is real. As an answer to how 8 people gave rise to 700 allele. I have put in bold the phrase that I think is rubbish. Would you agree?

Marty_Millions of Species in a Few Hundred Years?

Some people who object to a recent-creation interpretation of Genesis point to the fact that such a view requires that all modern animal species on earth must have descended from these same species saved on the Ark. If the Ark had roughly 30,000 animals (less than 15,000 species or different kinds), how could the animals on the Ark produce millions of species within a few hundred, or a few thousand, years after the Flood? Surely this would require a faster evolutionary rate than even the most ardent evolutionist would propose.

However, it is not correct to assume that a few thousand species would have produced the millions of species extant (alive) today. There are fewer than 30,000 extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and possibly land-reproducing amphibians (many salamanders) that were represented on the Ark. The millions of other species are the invertebrates (>95 percent of all animal species), fish, and a few aquatic mammals and reptiles that survived in the water during the Flood. The processes of speciation discussed above need to only double the number of animal species from 15,000 to 30,000. This is certainly a feasible process based on observable science.

Evolution, defined as large-scale changes that produce one kind of organism from another kind, is not capable of producing the millions of species observed today from the 15,000 different kinds of animals on the Ark. However, the genetic potential of each kind of animal and the freedom from genetic equilibrium, combined with mutations, would allow the appearance of many different species from the few animals on the Ark.

Genetic Potential for Variation

The genetic potential to produce a wide range of variation in any animal kind or species, regardless of how these terms are defined, easily provides 30,000 different species from fewer than 15,000 different kinds. Genetic potential is the amount of variation that a kind or type of organism can produce from the genetic material that is already present. It is possible for a pair of animals to harbor nearly all of the alleles (variations of a type of gene) for their kind in their genome.

Other alleles result from mutations to existing genes (human red hair color would be a good example of this). For example, two humans (Adam and Eve?) could have all the common DNA variations (called polymorphisms) found in all ethnic groups. This would require only one DNA base difference every 667 bases between the two of them. This is hardly a difficult situation for the genomes of two people and can account for much of the genetic variation observed in people today. Rare polymorphisms are few in number compared to common polymorphisms and are likely the result of the accumulation of mutations. These rare polymorphisms are frequently referred to as personal polymorphisms, since they can be used to identify an individual.

The effects of common and rare polymorphisms can be easily illustrated by all domesticated animals and their various breeds. Dogs, cattle, hamsters, and tropical fish all have many different breeds that easily demonstrate what genetic potential is. Of course, these are all artificially selected animals and selecting for these breeds has led to a much faster rate of variation (what some call evolution) than would be expected in the wild. (Most dog breeds have been developed in the last 200 years.)

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

The other important factor to be considered in this scenario is something called genetic (Hardy-Weinberg) equilibrium for the gene frequencies of a particular population of organisms. The change in gene frequency is used in evolutionary theory as evidence for microevolution, but this theorem can also be applied to a creation scenario since it does not involve the formation of novel genes from no genes. Hardy-Weinberg theory states that gene (or more accurately, allele) frequencies will remain constant as long as these requirements are met: random mating, no migration in or out of the population, no mutation, no genetic drift (chance changes in gene frequencies), and no selection for traits.

When the animals left the Ark none of these conditions would be met, enabling microevolution (change in allele frequency) and speciation events. These events include the selection of mates (for humans specifically), environmental selection of some traits, accumulation of mutations, chance genetic drift, and migration of animals taking with them different combinations of genetic material. Because of the small populations of animals immediately after the Flood, gene (allele) frequencies would rapidly be altered as animals migrated around the globe, adapted to various environments based on their genetic constitution, and became reproductively isolated.

This would result in many variations of the original animals on the Ark, just like artificial selection produces many variations in domestic animals. This is not just a creation paradigm. Many population genetic studies, for any animal, include migration and reproductive isolation leading to speciation. The migration of humans around the globe is well-documented and based on the changing gene frequencies (such as ABO blood alleles and mitochondrial DNA) in each population. It is also well documented from DNA and protein sequences that all animals had migratory events that contributed to the ecological, behavioral, and geographic speciation events observable today.Sorry i forgot to add the second part of their explanation:

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

The other important factor to be considered in this scenario is something called genetic (Hardy-Weinberg) equilibrium for the gene frequencies of a particular population of organisms. The change in gene frequency is used in evolutionary theory as evidence for microevolution, but this theorem can also be applied to a creation scenario since it does not involve the formation of novel genes from no genes. Hardy-Weinberg theory states that gene (or more accurately, allele) frequencies will remain constant as long as these requirements are met: random mating, no migration in or out of the population, no mutation, no genetic drift (chance changes in gene frequencies), and no selection for traits.

When the animals left the Ark none of these conditions would be met, enabling microevolution (change in allele frequency) and speciation events. These events include the selection of mates (for humans specifically), environmental selection of some traits, accumulation of mutations, chance genetic drift, and migration of animals taking with them different combinations of genetic material. Because of the small populations of animals immediately after the Flood, gene (allele) frequencies would rapidly be altered as animals migrated around the globe, adapted to various environments based on their genetic constitution, and became reproductively isolated.

This would result in many variations of the original animals on the Ark, just like artificial selection produces many variations in domestic animals. This is not just a creation paradigm. Many population genetic studies, for any animal, include migration and reproductive isolation leading to speciation. The migration of humans around the globe is well-documented and based on the changing gene frequencies (such as ABO blood alleles and mitochondrial DNA) in each population. It is also well documented from DNA and protein sequences that all animals had migratory events that contributed to the ecological, behavioral, and geographic speciation events observable today.

All of the examples given above do not require creation of new genes or genetic information via natural processes from genetic information not previously in existence (evolution). The genetic information we observe today was supplied at the time of creation in these animals in their genomes, and their genetic potential has created the variations frequently classified as species. It is true that mutations create many new variations, but this is not an example of Darwinian evolution. Mutations work on pre-existing genetic material, are accompanied with a loss of information, and lead to extinction, not the conversion of one animal kind into another animal kind, regardless of how many years mutations are given.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Of course it's impossible for the human genome to 'hide' all 673 HLA-A alleles.

The human genome project would have found them.

See, that's just it. The research has been done. Those alleles are not there. Every human has two. Either one (homozygous) or two (heterozygous) of the 673 HLA-A alleles. That's it.

If those alleles are 'hidden', then the only way to hide them would be to MUTATE them into something that ISN'T an allele and then hope that they mutate back epigentically or something.

It's pure hogwash. Again, the research has been done... they are simply wrong.

edit to add: BTW, the entire human genome is available on-line... those guys can get to work looking for those extra alleles... maybe it will keep them out of our hair for a while. Who am I kidding? Actually do science... hah!

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

An allele is a variant of a gene. Everyone has two alleles for blood type. I happen to have an 'A' allele and a 'B' allele... so my blood type is AB. I got the 'A' from my mom (who is blood type A) and the 'B' from my dad (who is blood type B).

My kid picked up a 'B' allele from me (since I could only give him one of the two) and an 'O' allele from my wife, so he's blood type 'B'.

Having two different alleles means you are heterozygous for that gene. Having two alleles that are the same means you are homozygous for that gene.

There are 673 HLA-A alleles... all variants for the HLA-A gene. Every person has two alleles. That's all that they can have... one from mom, one from dad*.

So either, after the flood a maximum of 10 alleles** (assuming that everyone on board was heterozygous) somehow mutated into 673 in less than 4000 years (depending on the date of da Flood), which results in sometime like 1 valid mutation every 6 years... in the HLA-A gene.***

Their other choice is front-loading. Which, simply has been proven wrong. The human genome would have to contain another 671 HLA-A alleles, another couple hundred HLA-B alleles, another few hundred HLA-C alleles, plus all the blood type alleles, etc. etc. etc.

As I said, the human genome has been sequenced completely. Those other alleles were not found. Therefore, frontloading didn't happen. Think about it, in 4000 years, with a mutation rate than YEcs can accept, there is no way that several thousand alleles would be changed so much as to be impossible to see in the genome... in everyone's genome.

Another way to think about that last bit is that you must have a population of 340 people to have every possible HLA-A allele expressed. Given birth rates, if everything went perfectly for Noah and his offspring, then it would still take over 60 years just to have every allele in an expressed position. And honestly, what is more likely, that every child born will just happen to have two completely unique alleles? or will there likely be some doubling going on?

So a minimum time for this is 60 years, if every parent has two children and all parents and offspring survive to reproduce and all parents have children well into their elderly years (like 70+). If you assume anything reasonable, the minimum time approaches several hundred years for all HLA-A alleles to be expressed.

Then you have to get rid of all those extra alleles so that they don't show up when the human genome project finishes some 4000 years later. It can't be a lucky mutation in just a few people... it must be a concerted effort to hide the evidence of those hundreds of alleles that now, must not exist in the population... and the YECs have less than 4000 years... probably less than 3000 years to do it. Again, with what we know of mutations and mutation rates, there is no way that these populations would survive the massive mutation rates. (remember it has to happen to multiple genes, not just HLA-A)

Finally, we get into the whole haplotype, which is used to trace human migration patterns over the course of human existence. Not only did kids have to be born with unique alleles, but they also had to get those in such a way as to allow certain haplotypes to move into certain regions at the same time.

For example, The Super-B8 haplotype is enriched in the Western Irish, declines along gradients away from that region, and is found only in areas of the world where Western Europeans have migrated. The "A3-B7-DR2-DQ1" is more widely spread, from Eastern Asia to Iberia. (from wikipedia)

This is akin to having a giant jar with thousands of marbles of all different types all mixed up. You dump the jar out and all the marbles not only roll into groups, but the groups are consistent within each other (all the turtles in one pile, all the aggies in another pile, all the pearls in a different pile. Again possible, but massively unlikely.

So, in conclusion, to accept the YEC belief, you must accept at least 3 widely improbably claims (not to mention the ark, the animals, feeding, where'd the water come from, where'd it go, depth, heat generated by rainfall, etc, etc, etc). And all of those claims are directly opposite of what is known to actually occur.

One must ask the question, when did the rules change and why?

Their only option is many, many miracles. But that's not science.

*With the exception of a couple of trisomy issues, but those are universally bad.

** 2 from Noah, 2 from his wife, and 6 from the three wives. Noah's boys don't count, because they could only have what Noah and his wife have. If you make an allowance for mutation in every single allele for the boys (which is highly unlikely), then you could make the claim for 16 alleles.

*** Considering that there is more than one gene with a massive number of alleles, you end up looking at something like 2-3 valid mutations per year in the entire population. Which is fine if your population is 7 billion. If your population is 20, that's a big deal. And that fact destroys any chance of the YECs saying 'mutation is bad', 'mutation degrades the genome', ect. etc. They MUST have massive positive mutation rates... which BTW are way higher than any biologist would consider feasible.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

You have no fundamental understanding, which is funny since you are claiming to have a greater understanding than do those who actually do research.

If you can't distinguish between "you" and "your," there's not a lot of hope for you when it comes to high-school level genetics.

Hello? I'm on your side, I'm trying to convince some IDots for the case of evolution. Unfortunately my understanding of genetics isn't as good as I wish it was, that's why i posted questions here.

I made a specific point as you can read in my past posts against their silly argument that if the Ark story was true they would have to explain how we could get from 16 alleles to the 700 found now.

However since my understanding is limited and I'm debating in Italian I like to learn more as the different questions arise. Thanks to the people here I've learned alot already.

Perhaps I see where the mistake is, I've corrected the questions1) Only 2 allele are found per human correct?2) The 700 HLA-A alleles represents the total pool available.3) Of these 700 each human will only have a specific 2 correct?4) These 700 would have to have developed since the flood if their TARDsm was true.

ThanksMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

An allele is a variant of a gene. Everyone has two alleles for blood type. I happen to have an 'A' allele and a 'B' allele... so my blood type is AB. I got the 'A' from my mom (who is blood type A) and the 'B' from my dad (who is blood type B).

My kid picked up a 'B' allele from me (since I could only give him one of the two) and an 'O' allele from my wife, so he's blood type 'B'.

Having two different alleles means you are heterozygous for that gene. Having two alleles that are the same means you are homozygous for that gene.

There are 673 HLA-A alleles... all variants for the HLA-A gene. Every person has two alleles. That's all that they can have... one from mom, one from dad*.

So either, after the flood a maximum of 10 alleles** (assuming that everyone on board was heterozygous) somehow mutated into 673 in less than 4000 years (depending on the date of da Flood), which results in sometime like 1 valid mutation every 6 years... in the HLA-A gene.***

Their other choice is front-loading. Which, simply has been proven wrong. The human genome would have to contain another 671 HLA-A alleles, another couple hundred HLA-B alleles, another few hundred HLA-C alleles, plus all the blood type alleles, etc. etc. etc.

As I said, the human genome has been sequenced completely. Those other alleles were not found. Therefore, frontloading didn't happen. Think about it, in 4000 years, with a mutation rate than YEcs can accept, there is no way that several thousand alleles would be changed so much as to be impossible to see in the genome... in everyone's genome.

Another way to think about that last bit is that you must have a population of 340 people to have every possible HLA-A allele expressed. Given birth rates, if everything went perfectly for Noah and his offspring, then it would still take over 60 years just to have every allele in an expressed position. And honestly, what is more likely, that every child born will just happen to have two completely unique alleles? or will there likely be some doubling going on?

So a minimum time for this is 60 years, if every parent has two children and all parents and offspring survive to reproduce and all parents have children well into their elderly years (like 70+). If you assume anything reasonable, the minimum time approaches several hundred years for all HLA-A alleles to be expressed.

Then you have to get rid of all those extra alleles so that they don't show up when the human genome project finishes some 4000 years later. It can't be a lucky mutation in just a few people... it must be a concerted effort to hide the evidence of those hundreds of alleles that now, must not exist in the population... and the YECs have less than 4000 years... probably less than 3000 years to do it. Again, with what we know of mutations and mutation rates, there is no way that these populations would survive the massive mutation rates. (remember it has to happen to multiple genes, not just HLA-A)

Finally, we get into the whole haplotype, which is used to trace human migration patterns over the course of human existence. Not only did kids have to be born with unique alleles, but they also had to get those in such a way as to allow certain haplotypes to move into certain regions at the same time.

For example, The Super-B8 haplotype is enriched in the Western Irish, declines along gradients away from that region, and is found only in areas of the world where Western Europeans have migrated. The "A3-B7-DR2-DQ1" is more widely spread, from Eastern Asia to Iberia. (from wikipedia)

This is akin to having a giant jar with thousands of marbles of all different types all mixed up. You dump the jar out and all the marbles not only roll into groups, but the groups are consistent within each other (all the turtles in one pile, all the aggies in another pile, all the pearls in a different pile. Again possible, but massively unlikely.

So, in conclusion, to accept the YEC belief, you must accept at least 3 widely improbably claims (not to mention the ark, the animals, feeding, where'd the water come from, where'd it go, depth, heat generated by rainfall, etc, etc, etc). And all of those claims are directly opposite of what is known to actually occur.

One must ask the question, when did the rules change and why?

Their only option is many, many miracles. But that's not science.

*With the exception of a couple of trisomy issues, but those are universally bad.

** 2 from Noah, 2 from his wife, and 6 from the three wives. Noah's boys don't count, because they could only have what Noah and his wife have. If you make an allowance for mutation in every single allele for the boys (which is highly unlikely), then you could make the claim for 16 alleles.

*** Considering that there is more than one gene with a massive number of alleles, you end up looking at something like 2-3 valid mutations per year in the entire population. Which is fine if your population is 7 billion. If your population is 20, that's a big deal. And that fact destroys any chance of the YECs saying 'mutation is bad', 'mutation degrades the genome', ect. etc. They MUST have massive positive mutation rates... which BTW are way higher than any biologist would consider feasible.

Thank's for having given a great explanation that I can really use!

CheersMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

I still want to know what they consider "new genetic information." Which of these would qualify, in their opinion?

A) a mutation in an existing gene that has no effect on gene functionB) a mutation in an existing gene that modifies the existing function (eg maybe changes gene expression levels, or changes catalytic rates of an enzyme encoded by the gene)C) a mutation in an existing gene that creates a new function (eg the encoded enzyme can now act on a different substrate, or the encoded protein can now bind to a different DNA sequence)D) an existing gene that gets duplicated, with no change in the DNA sequenceE) a gene that gets duplicated with some sequence change that either modifies gene function (E1) or creates a new function (E2)F) duplication of a large stretch of the genome, without or with modified or new functionsG) duplication of the entire genome (polyploidy)H) introduction of DNA from an outside source, such as integration of viral DNA into the host's chromosomeI) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.

I still want to know what they consider "new genetic information." Which of these would qualify, in their opinion?

A) a mutation in an existing gene that has no effect on gene functionB) a mutation in an existing gene that modifies the existing function (eg maybe changes gene expression levels, or changes catalytic rates of an enzyme encoded by the gene)C) a mutation in an existing gene that creates a new function (eg the encoded enzyme can now act on a different substrate, or the encoded protein can now bind to a different DNA sequence)D) an existing gene that gets duplicated, with no change in the DNA sequenceE) a gene that gets duplicated with some sequence change that either modifies gene function (E1) or creates a new function (E2)F) duplication of a large stretch of the genome, without or with modified or new functionsG) duplication of the entire genome (polyploidy)H) introduction of DNA from an outside source, such as integration of viral DNA into the host's chromosomeI) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.

That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.

Their argument is that it would take "10^40 critters to make the gains seen by Behe feasible for the creation of the biodiversity". Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity. Sure it's enough for small changes and microscale evolution but not to justify biodiversity in nature. Actually he challenged us to provide a peer reviewed paper that would prove him wrong, regarding gain of functions and/or that proved Behe's findings to be off.

I mentioned that Lenski had in fact seen a gain of function in 2008 with CITL but this was shrugged off as a typical example of epigenics, "and even if it that wasn't the case it was still so rare that it's a negligible event"

I've asked him to show me the equation that got him that number (10^40) but got no answer.

To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

New genes mostly happen by duplication of existing genes. Those IDiots can do their homework and look up the current literature about gene duplication. I haven't read the lenski paper, but I'd be surprised if the mutation that caused adaptation to citrate wasn't characterized.

And regarding post-flood speciation... Anyone who believes in the biblical version of the flood has lost it. There's no point in arguing with brainwashed people.

That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.

Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?

Quote

Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Quote

To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.